Jared Blackburn wrote:
>> > >Doug Klimesh wrote in message news
> > >[snip}"And that to truly understand consciousness, you must go beyond
> > >the bounds of purely objective science. Remember that quantum physics
> > >shows that objectiveness is a myth."
>> No, quantum physic IN NO WAY shows that objectivity is a myth -- it has
> nothing to do with objectity, but is mearly a set of equations that
> describe phenomina to the best ability currently possible. There are
> numerous philosophical interpretations of the probabilistic nature of
> these equations, incuding: "reality is subjective or determined by the
> observer," "every possible out-come happens, as the 'timeline' splits
> through unprecieved dementions of time," "souls spirits influence the
> world though manipulating the probabilities," "there are hard, fast
> rules, but we don't understand them, and must use probabilistic
> descritpions," "qunatum phenomina are truly random," and many others --
> that is the philosophy of qunatum theory, though, not the science. It
> is pushing ideas like this that lead many physicists to laugh and scoff
> and people in the behavioral sciences.
Ok, I guess I should have said something like, "more than one
philosophical interpretation of quantum physics implies that objectivity
is a myth." My point was about consciousness and how can one know when
they have found a mechanism of consciousness, because consciousness is a
subjective phenomenon. Perhaps I should have left quantum physics out
of it, but I stand by the preceding sentence about consciousness and
objectivity.
No, I think physicists scoff at the nature of behavior sciences in
general. I am interested in neuroscience not behavioral science (at
least on this ng), although I don't know what the line separating the
two fields is. I don't see many behavioral scientists pushing these
subjective reality ideas anyway.
> I might note, that for anything to be true, even a propostition like
> "physical reality is subjective," a there must be an objective reality
> on some level, or the proposition itself is not true (ie, is not
> valid).
If your definition of truth requires objectivity, then may be nothing is
true (valid). Is there anything that you believe that is not objective?
> Quantum physic is based on and in onjective reality -- it is
> only some peoples (even a few rare, but famous physicists) twisting of
> it to push mystical ideas. This is why Schoerndinger invented his cat
> paradox, to show how rediculous the "reality is not objective" view is,
> by moving to a more macroscopic and obvious level, and why Einstein
> stated "I don't believe a mouse can alter the universe just be looking
> at it."
Quantum physics doesn't have to be twisted at all to push mystical ideas
- that's the point. Read _The Tao of Physics_ by Fritjof Capra
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0877735948/dougklimeswebsit ) or
_The Dancing Wu Li Masters_ by Gary Zukav.
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/055326382X/dougklimeswebsit )
But like reality, everybody has their interpretation.
I think Schrodinger invented his cat to move quantum ideas to a more
macroscopic and obvious level only, but I haven't read any of him except
for some interesting quotes in his _What Is Life?_
(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521427088/dougklimeswebsit ).
Einstein also believed that "God doesn't play dice".